Dear Editor,
Does hierarchy of opinions exist? If so, who gets to decide what's best for us? One of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century, Michel Foucault, wrote extensively on Power and Knowledge. He argued that there was a certain relationship between Power and Knowledge and, in order for some things to come to the surface, others inevitably must be suppressed.
Unpacking Foucault's Systems of Thought amounts to mental gymnastics and exhaustion. Foucault wrote almost as if not to be understood, but his ideas, once comprehended, can illuminate one's understanding of the way society is structured.
Some categories of opinions are discriminately placed on a pedestal, preserved and kept there indefinitely in the service and furtherance of certain objectives and ends. Thus far, there is no universal consensus on the superiority of one viewpoint over another. Views are just what they are – views, and the associated images you see depend on which lens you're peering through.
However, an undue confidence in one's opinions at the expense of all others severely reduces our capacity to tolerate and regard considerations and mental surveys of others.
The sources of this excessive confidence are numerous, with some exerting more influence than others on the importance they ascribe to certain opinions. For instance, let's suppose that two minds, one schooled, the other unschooled, are invited to give their opinions on a rather simple matter, something that requires no intellectual training or background knowledge, just a routine, daily occurrence. The observations of both participants are equally insightful and innovative.
Given, then, that all other things are equal, whose opinions, then, get the coveted wink of an eye when our tendency to rank others kicks in? We know all too well where the preference shifts, and understandably so, since the products of institutions of learning are considered morally and intellectually superior to non-initiates. There is a predisposition to hold in esteem opinions that emanate from those who have undergone extensive refinement or improvement of mind by formal education.
Their opinions, like everyone else's, are all based on grounds short of proof, which is what one's opinion actually is. However, quite often their views are mistakenly interpreted as competent enquiry, unfavourably and prejudicially accepted as probable – that which is, or may be expected to happen, or prove true or correct. We continue to witness the devastating effects of this bias across the globe.
Conversely, the creative opinions of those who for varying reasons were unable to acquire, at the very least, a secondary level of formal education are constantly overlooked and placed nowhere close to the top of the pyramid of opinions.
This huge storehouse of opinions and creativity are relegated to the fringes of society, without due consideration, and we observe this unfair practice being perpetrated by other privileged groups in society, too, which is not just restricted to those who have been adequately schooled. This privilege crosses borders to include those who have climbed the social ladder by whatever means, and exert tremendous influence.
The judgment of those whose reservoir of intellectual and socioeconomic capital is greater than the remainder of the whole of society is accorded more weight. Is it by design that the opinions of these groups of individuals are given considerably more importance than others?
There are views that are a threat to the status quo of society and are interpreted as "revolutionary." They operate outside of the "intellectual" and "emotional safe spaces" of the gatekeepers and are not allowed to come to the surface. All available resources are marshaled to suppress and portray these opinions as destructive and inferior.
We seek opinions to gain control over the unpredictable, for in all of us there is a psychological need for reassurance, if we are to create order and sense out of events to give them focus and direction. We champion the views that fulfill this need, and seldom confer meaning and value to those that are contrary, because they bring us "divine displeasure."
The economy of opinions permits only that which ensures order. Any view that attempts to upset and destabilize this equilibrium is attacked and, in some cases, violently too. If we recognize that our opinions are just ideas that are believed to be true, and a propensity to accord a greater value to some opinions and less to others is a basic human tendency, then we might increase our capacity to tolerate, consider and contemplate the views of others.
Orlando Patterson
